I have the same problems with the SCR and TRIAC models from this company. I found another SCR with a model made at the transistor level. There are TRIAC models made similarly. Thyristor_TRIAC_Qxx40xx_A_SPICE_Model.txt (15.6 KB)
Thanks so much, i will try to run
Another question, although this file model has a similar name, can it be considered that its simulation results can represent ST devices?
Thanks!
Thanks
I have tried two ways to use your model 1. Simply copy the model from your QSCH to successfully simulate it 2. Adding. qsym separately to âsymbols and IPâ will result in the same error, I donât know why
**3.**Regarding the differences in simulation results, I have reviewed your two models QK040K7 seems to be Thyristor_TRIAC_Qxx40xx_A_SPICE-ModelďźThis model seems to be closer to the result I want
|. SUBCKT QK040K7 1 2 3\nQnpn1 5 4 3 NoutF OFF\nQpnp1 4 5 7 PoutF OFF\nQnpn2 11 6 7 NoutR OFF\nQpnp2 6 11 3 PoutR OFF\nDfor 4 5 DZ OFF\nDrev 6 11 DZ OFF\nRfor 4 6 12MEG\nRon 1 7 10m\nRhold 7 6 50\nRGP 8 3 10\nRG 2 8 5.8\nRS 8 4 75\nDN 9 2 DIN OFF\nRN 9 3 4\nGNN 6 7 9 3 0.1\nGNP 4 5 9 3 0.1\nDP 2 10 DIP OFF\nRP 10 3 3.56\n.MODEL DIN D (IS=382F)\n.MODEL DIP D (IS=382F N=1.19)\n.MODEL DZ D (IS=382F N=1.5 IBV=50U BV=1000)\n.MODEL PoutF PNP (IS=382F BF=0.45 CJE=380p TF=0.3U)\n.MODEL NoutF NPN (IS=382F BF=3 CJE=380p CJC=76p TF=0.3U)\n.MODEL PoutR PNP (IS=382F BF=2.5 CJE=380p TF=0.3U)\n.MODEL NoutR NPN (IS=382F BF=0.5 CJE=380p CJC=76p TF=0.3U)\n.ENDS
Another Triac_ST, has this been modified by you based on the ST file?Wolud you like to tell me what modifications have been made? It can run now, but the waveform doesnât seem to be what I want. Itâs strange why
|.subckt Triac_ST A K G \nS_S3 A Plip1 positive 0 Smain\nD_DAK1 Plip1 Plip2 Dak\nR_Rlip Plip1 Plip2 1k\nV_Viak Plip2 K DC 0 AC 0\nS_S4 A Plin1 negative 0 Smain\nD_DKA1 Plin2 Plin1 Dak\nR_Rlin Plin1 Plin2 1k\nV_Vika K Plin2 DC 0 AC 0\nR_Rgk G K 10G\nD_DGKi Pg2 G Dgk\nD_DGKd G Pg2 Dgk\nV_Vig Pg2 K DC 0 AC 0\nR_Rlig G Pg2 1k\nR_Rp Controlp positive 2.2\nC_Cp 0 positive 1u\nBE_IF15OR3 Controlp 0 V=IF(((V(CMDIG)>0.5)|(V(CMDILIH)>0.5)|(V(CMDVdrm)>0.5)),400,0)\nR_Rn Controln negative 2.2\nC_Cn 0 negative 1u\nBE_IF14OR3 Controln 0 V=IF(((V(CMDIG)>0.5)|(V(CMDILIHN)>0.5)|(V(CMDVdrm)>0.5)),400,0)\nBE_IF1IG inIG 0 V=IF((ABS(I(V_Vig)))>(Igt-1u),1,0)\nBE_MULT2MULT CMDIG 0 V=V(Q4)V(inIG)\nBE_IF2Quadrant4 Q4 0 V=IF(((I(V_Vig)>(Igt-0.000001))&((V(A)-V(K) )<0)&(Standard==0)),0,1)\nBE_IF10IL inIL 0 V=IF(((I(V_Viak))>(Ih/2)),1,0)\nBE_IF5IH inIH 0 V=IF(((I(V_Viak))>(Ih/3)),1,0)\nBE_IF6DIHIL SDIHIL 0 V=IF((V(inIL)V(inIH)+V(inIH)(1-V(inIL))(V(CMDILIH)))>0.5,1,0)\nC_CIHIL CMDILIH 0 1n\nR_RIHIL SDIHIL CMDILIH 1K\nR_RIHIL2 CMDILIH 0 100Meg\nBE_IF11ILn inILn 0 V=IF(((I(V_Vika))>(Ih/2)),1,0)\nBE_IF3IHn inIHn 0 V=IF(((I(V_Vika))>(Ih/3)),1,0)\nBE_IF4DIHILN SDIHILN 0 V=IF((V(inILn)V(inIHn)+V(inIHn)(1-V(inILn))(V(CMDILIHN)))>0.5,1,0)\nC_CIHILn CMDILIHN 0 1n\nR_RIHILn SDIHILN CMDILIHN 1K\nR_RIHILn2 CMDILIHN 0 100Meg\nBE_IF8Vdrm inVdrm 0 V=IF((ABS(V(A)-V(K))>(Vdrm1.3)),1,0)\nBE_IF9IHVDRM inIhVdrm 0 V=IF((I(V_Viak)>(Vdrm1.3)/1.2meg)|(I(V_Vika)>(Vdrm1.3)/1.2meg), 1,0)\nBE_IF7DVDRM SDVDRM 0 V=IF((V(inVdrm)+(1-V(inVdrm))*V(inIhVdrm)*V(CMDVdrm))>0.5,1,0)\nC_CVdrm CMDVdrm 0 1n\nR_RVdrm SDVDRM CMDVdrm 100\nR_RVdrm2 CMDVdrm 0 100Meg\n.MODEL Smain SW Roff=1.2meg Ron={Rt} Vh=50 Vt=50\n.MODEL Dak D( Is=3E-12 Cjo=5pf)\n.MODEL Dgk D( Is=1E-16 Cjo=50pf Rs=5)\n.ends
Good news!
I am now able to upload attachments, it is very helpful to me to solve the problem
So pls see attached file
And another question is Why canât I see the effect of overlapping waveforms when I run step analysis?
Then, I found my problem
Because I set the param of R2 as a fixed value is 330
I think my habit is because in other simulation software, it does not conflict with step analysis, such as Altium
Hi, bordodynov
Maybe I have a new questuion need you help to support
I donât understand why you set two model use different methord?
Is there any difference between them?
1ăFirst methord
Hoyle,
One model is just a model, and the second is parametric. The second is a model that has parameters that the user can set. You wonât find a spice model for every device. The reasons may be different. For example, because no one created it. In this case, a parametric model will help. I did this with Russians or made in the USSR. You can also change the parameters to study the effect of the parameter spread. For example, in this case, the sensitivity of the thyristor. Itâs just that some circuits wonât work at high control currents. Spice models are usually given for typical element parameters.
Hi, bordodynov
Thanks so much
Please forgive my unfamiliarity with model syntax
Although my previous model did not have pin correspondencesďźit also woks,Please refer to the detailed description followed pic
Then the model in the QSCH you gave me updated should have used a new model, with pins corresponding to the model one by oneďźBut Why is it different from the previous grammar, which had. params
First. Read the instructions for thyristors and remember which parameters are mentioned. Second. I offered the model from St. in vain. The model lacks many parameters. Therefore, letâs not discuss it. Vdrm => Forward breakover voltage
Vrrm => Reverse breakdown voltage
Idrm => Peak blocking current
Ih => Holding current
dVdt => Critical value for dV/dt triggering
Igt => Gate trigger current
Vgt => Gate trigger voltage
Vtm => On-state voltage
Itm => On-state current
Ton => Turn-on time
Toff => Turn-off time
About the discrepancy between the names in the symbol and in the model. They may not match. The main thing is that the sequence must be followed.